[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45E2DF13.9010200@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:22:27 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc4-mm1: PCI=n: drivers/net/3c59x.c compile error
Hello, I wrote:
>>>> 3x59x-fix-pci-resource-management.patch causes the following compile
>>>> error with CONFIG_PCI=n:
>>>> <-- snip -->
>>>> ...
>>>> CC drivers/net/3c59x.o
>>>> /home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/drivers/net/3c59x.c:
>>>> In function 'vortex_init_one':
>>>> /home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/drivers/net/3c59x.c:961:
>>>> error: implicit declaration of function 'pci_request_regions'
>>>> /home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/drivers/net/3c59x.c:985:
>>>> error: implicit declaration of function 'pci_release_regions'
>>>> make[3]: *** [drivers/net/3c59x.o] Error 1
>>> Grr, at at the same time it's happy with pci_enable_device().
>>> I'd say the problem is in <linux/pci.h>, not in the patch.
>> Has there been any patch to fix the "unbalanced"
>> pci_{request|release}_regions() declarations? Am I suposed to create
>> such?
> Alternatively, vortex_{init|remove_one() and struct pci_driver there
> could have been put under #ifdef CONFIG_PCI (good idea anyway -- should
> reduce driver size on non-PCI systems)...
I wonder if I may count on any feedback on this -- asking linux-pci now...
The issue is as follows: with my patch pci_{request|release}_regions() may
be called with CONFIG_PCI=n (probably, this never has been a issue before) but
<linux/pci.h> don't have them declared in this case -- unlike
pci_enable_device() which is just empty for CONFIG_PCI=n.
Now, what kind of approach do I take:
- a "fair one", so that pci_{request|release}_regions() get "balanced"
declarations in the header like pci_enable_device();
- a "local one" (and even saving non-PCI kernel from needless bloat), i.e.
#ifdef out functions that are only meaningful with CONFIG_PCI=y)?
I'm leaning to the second now...
>>>> cu
>>>> Adrian
MBR, Sergei
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists